Telecommunication networks have evolved over the last decade from a time division multiplexing (TDM) to an Internet Protocol (IP) based architecture. IP based telecommunication networks are generally referred to as multimedia over IP (MoIP) networks which encompasses voice (VoIP), video, data, and the like. Architectural evolutions in the IP based telecommunication networks are referred to as next generation networking. The VoIP networks are decomposed; media and signaling are handled by different entities in the VoIP network. Two of the key components in the VoIP network are media gateway controller (MGC) and media gateway (MG). The MGC handles the signaling to setup and tear down calls, and also controls the MG. The MG on the other hand converts the media from TDM to IP and vice versa.
The MGs and MGCs need to be provisioned to bridge between the TDM and IP networks based on carrier and endpoints terminating on it from private branch exchange (PBX) or public switched telephone network (PSTN), codecs and packetization rates supported by digital signaling processing (DSP) cards on the MG, primary and alternate MGC IP addresses, and echo cancellation.
Generally, the MG and the MGC have their own element management systems (EMS) to configure carrier and endpoint data. Usually, no defined standard exists as such for VoIP configuration. Different vendors use their own mechanism in configuring the MG and MGCs. One reason being that the next generation network (NGN) is derived from existing TDM networks which uses legacy technologies to configure network elements. The other reason being that vendors generate significant revenues by charging for configuration of the network elements which need specialized skills. Equipment vendors do not want to lose this revenue stream.
Typically, the MGs are manufactured by third party suppliers and have their own EMS. In general, there would be a separate EMS for the MGC and the MG and they need to be provisioned separately. One drawback of using different EMS for the MGC and the MG is configuration data mismatch. The primary issue is that since the provisioning of the carriers and endpoints needs to be done separately on the MG and the MGC, there is duplication of data on the MG and the MGC. The deployment of large VoIP networks can lead to issues of scale due to number of MGCs and MGs, as well as huge amount of configuration scripts required for configuring all the network elements.
The other drawback being requiring multiple provisioning protocols and technologies during provisioning for the MG and the MGC. Some of the provisioning protocols used are simple web based hypertext markup language (HTML) pages, simple network management protocol (SNMP), EMS, network management system (NMS) and so on. All these protocols are typically used for provisioning the VoIP networks and a single protocol or technology is not adopted universally by all the telecom vendors.
Thus, when provisioning the data in these varied protocols and systems, there may be mistakes in data entry or data formats. In a typical hybrid VoIP/TDM network, there may be thousands of line MGs and hundreds of trunk MGs, hence using different technologies and data formats, and dynamically adding or deleting configuration will inevitably lead to data mismatch. When there is a mismatch in the data of MGC and MG, the carriers and the endpoints will not come into service. This may also lead to wrong mapping of the physical connection on MGC; trunk resources on the MGC may not come in service; there would be difficulty in debugging corruption since the configuration data will be huge in size for large capacity MGC/MG with many carriers/endpoints and would potentially require a re-configuration of the entire MG and MGC. This can result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of revenue and customer attrition to the service providers.
Existing solutions address bulk provisioning of MGs by grouping the carrier and the end points into a management context and managing packet voice networks using a virtual switch approach. This approach defines a virtual network with the MGCs and the MGs and describes how they can be provisioned. Further, the existing solutions require provisioning of the carriers and the endpoints separately on the MG and the MGC, which results in duplication of the data.
Furthermore, when provisioning same data in the MGC and the MG as described above, there may be mistakes in data entry or mismatches in data formats. The other problems with the existing solutions are that, when there is a mismatch in the data on the MGC and the MG, the carriers and the endpoints will not come into service. This could lead to outages and service impacts, separate element management systems need more effort when provisioning the MG and the MGC, and subsequent addition or deletion of MGs from the network may lead to data mismatches.
The drawings described herein are for illustration purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure in any way.